Yeah, we've all seen it. Like when you just got done screaming about Islamic invaders taking over Sweden one town at a time, panicking over Sharia patrols and demographic trends that don't exist and asking how long it is before non-Muslim Europeans become dhimmis.
Consider my three points. I am not for banning immigration by Muslims in general, but there need to be reasonable standards regarding numbers, what kind of people you let immigrate and a way to get rid of criminals. Why these three points should be in any way controversial is baffling to me.
As to "taking over one town at a time", that's just a consequence of mass migration. When you let in a huge number of people in from a very different culture there is not much pressure to integrate - because there are so many of them they can form parallel societies. They do not settle uniformly, but congregate such that they form local majorities while still having relatively low population numbers overall. Hence, taking over one town at a time. Many parts of major European cities (like Rickeby/Little Mogadishu in Stockholm) are already taken over by Islam.
This is just a consequence of mass migration coupled with high birth rates. Their population share keeps increasing, and will keep increasing. If you extrapolate, they will become majority in Europe in a few decades, unless there is a major policy change or they start giving up Islam en masse (unlikely with them forming parallel societies rather than integrating).
Sharia patrols are also a real thing. For example the UK one even has it's own wiki page:
Sharia patrols
There are also such patrols (calling themselves "police") in Wuppertal, Germany:
German court acquits 'Sharia Police' in Wuppertal
So really, stop trying to dress your bigotry up as something it isn't. It's a dishonest chickenshit tactic that racist fuckwads hide behind all the time, and it doesn't fool anybody.
Name-calling is not a substitute for reasoned arguments. I have offered reasons for my positions, but all you have is calling people bigots. You are worse than John Cleese in the Argument Clinic.
Your issue isn't with uncontrolled Muslim immigration, it's with Muslim immigration period.
Wrong.
You see Muslims only in terms of what they can take from society and never even consider the prospect of them adding something to it. You view them all as innately incompatible with Western society and guilty until proven innocent when it comes to extremism.
Extremist/fundamentalist Muslims are innately incompatible with Western societies and should not be allowed to immigrate at all, much less in large numbers. When you have a mass, chaotic influx of migrants there is no way to check people for compatibility with Western values. Thus, many people incompatible with those values will end up coming in. That is especially true when they tend to come from areas where Islamic fundamentalism is a majority position (or in case of Afghanistan, almost universal position).
But you are attributing to me positions that I do not have. You cannot argue with my actual positions, so you set up a straw-Derec, easier to knock down.
I know many Muslim people who are very much compatible with Western society and an asset. For example, most Bosnian Muslims as well as Iranian immigrants whose families fled the weirdbeards taking over.
But I also unfortunately know Muslims who are exactly the opposite.
You don't think they're entitled to the same rights or respect as you simply by virtue of their being Muslims.
Again, straw-derec.
Once again: fuck you and the horse you rode in on, you xenophobic prick.
Well, who can argue with such well-constructed, well-reasoned argument?
You are proving my point that the only thing you have are insults and name-calling.
